Penny Lane
Sitting For The Arnolds
The Girl With Colitis Goes By
Posts: 2,888
|
Post by Penny Lane on Nov 21, 2007 10:29:07 GMT -5
To be fair, I really think Sharon just needed to leave California -- she chose Stoneybrook because she needed a support system (ie, her parents). Maybe in a way she figured if she left California behind, she could leave the pain behind. Agree. I actually didn't think it was that bad that she moved back home - not that she went about it in the very best way but I don't think she did it to get back at Jack or anything like that. I haven't gotten to Dawn's chapter yet so maybe I'll think differently this time, though, as I don't remember it very well. I don't know. I just can't see someone moving clear to the otherside of the country "to escape the pain" when children are involved. If she hadn't wanted to hurt Jack, then she would have stayed in California - the place where she had been living for the past 12 (at least) years. Where all her friends, her kids friends, her kids school, her entire life was located. Divorce is hard enough on kids when they can see their parents on a regular basis. To me, what she did was criminal, and horrible. It was not in the best interest of Jeff and Dawn, as they were not being abused at all by their father. I just think that not allowing someone to see their children is terrible. While I will be one of the most outspoken people against children in the first place, I can not deny that some people bond very well with children. I've seen what happens to men who's wives take their children away -- it's horrible, and sad, and mean. It's mean to the kids, it's mean to the men, and most people in today's society don't think that men are capable of raising kids, so they have no protection in the courts. To me, Sharon was cruel and vindictive in her actions. And that part where Dawn wants to call her best friend, because her parents got a divorce and moved her clear across the country where she doesn't know anybody except her grandparents and her mom says no and makes her feel guilty for asking is especially telling. Now, I'm normally the last person to be all "oh, poor kids had to move, didn't know anyone" -- I've moved more times to more places where I didn't know anyone then I can even remember and it never really bothered me -- but in this case, there are three other people in pain besides Sharon.
|
|
janey83
Sitter-In-Training
Posts: 374
|
Post by janey83 on Nov 21, 2007 11:25:09 GMT -5
^I know what you mean about the moving. Growing up, I never lived anywhere longer that 3-4 years, so I get what it's like to pack up & move on a regular basis. So, in a way I never felt too badly for Dawn & Jeff, or Stacey for that matter, having to to NYC back and forth.
In Sharon's case, she & Jack did arrange for the kids to visit California, and did eventually let Jeff move back & then later let Dawn move back. I still say Sharon left because she needed support from her parents. If I was ever in her situation, I know that the first thing I would do is go to where my parents are, even if that meant going across the country.
Also....something I just thought of, Sharon is not notoriously known for her clear, level headed thinking. I really think that when she and Jack divorced, she wanted to just leave. Maybe she didn't want to be in an area where she would be constantly reminded of Jack. She never went back to California at any point, did she? I was always confused as to why she didn't go to visit Sunny's mom when she was dealing with cancer -- I would have thought that they would have been close. Anyway, my point is, I think Sharon just wanted to leave, fast, even if that meant uprooting the children, in order to get away from the problem.
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Nov 21, 2007 17:24:38 GMT -5
^ I agree, janey. I wasn't saying in my post that Sharon was trying to be mean - actually trying to say the opposite that she just wanted to get out of there and get to a situation that she hoped would be better for all of them. I think in the later books she's always really good about letting the kids go back and forth and is pretty hospitable to Jack. As for moving, I can't relate as I've lived in the same place all my life but I do feel for people who have to move around a lot. I've had friends who have had to do this and I'm sure it's really hard for them. I do feel for Dawn and Jeff, even if I can't personally know what they were feeling.
|
|
macca
Sitting For The Newtons
Posts: 2,084
|
Post by macca on Nov 24, 2007 0:29:05 GMT -5
I don't know. I just can't see someone moving clear to the otherside of the country "to escape the pain" when children are involved. If she hadn't wanted to hurt Jack, then she would have stayed in California - the place where she had been living for the past 12 (at least) years. Where all her friends, her kids friends, her kids school, her entire life was located. Divorce is hard enough on kids when they can see their parents on a regular basis. To me, what she did was criminal, and horrible. It was not in the best interest of Jeff and Dawn, as they were not being abused at all by their father. I just think that not allowing someone to see their children is terrible. While I will be one of the most outspoken people against children in the first place, I can not deny that some people bond very well with children. I've seen what happens to men who's wives take their children away -- it's horrible, and sad, and mean. It's mean to the kids, it's mean to the men, and most people in today's society don't think that men are capable of raising kids, so they have no protection in the courts. To me, Sharon was cruel and vindictive in her actions. And that part where Dawn wants to call her best friend, because her parents got a divorce and moved her clear across the country where she doesn't know anybody except her grandparents and her mom says no and makes her feel guilty for asking is especially telling. Now, I'm normally the last person to be all "oh, poor kids had to move, didn't know anyone" -- I've moved more times to more places where I didn't know anyone then I can even remember and it never really bothered me -- but in this case, there are three other people in pain besides Sharon. Well said. It was absolutely horrible what Sharon did.
|
|
alula
Sitter-In-Training
Posts: 406
|
Post by alula on Nov 24, 2007 2:43:19 GMT -5
Today in California you can't take your kids out of state without the permission of the other parent, if you have any kind of shared custody.
I don't know if it ever says in the books, but I sort of got the impression (or rather, filled in for myself) that Sharon went straight from her parents' home to college to marriage without ever having lived on her own, and I think that probably had a big influence on her immediate decision to move back. I don't think it was vindicative in motivation, considering how flexible she is in changing the custody arrangements later. (One might argue that she's actually too flexible, because if Dawn were a real person, all that moving back and forth in a year would have wreaked havoc on her education, but whatever).
|
|
|
Post by liss31d on Nov 24, 2007 6:20:42 GMT -5
Sharon says that she has primary custody of Jeff and Dawn... why didn't they get joint custody?
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Nov 24, 2007 20:28:38 GMT -5
Today in California you can't take your kids out of state without the permission of the other parent, if you have any kind of shared custody. I don't know if it ever says in the books, but I sort of got the impression (or rather, filled in for myself) that Sharon went straight from her parents' home to college to marriage without ever having lived on her own, and I think that probably had a big influence on her immediate decision to move back. I don't think it was vindicative in motivation, considering how flexible she is in changing the custody arrangements later. (One might argue that she's actually too flexible, because if Dawn were a real person, all that moving back and forth in a year would have wreaked havoc on her education, but whatever). I agree. Those are my thoughts, too, on Sharon. I never considered why they didn't have joint custody because I guess I assumed that Jack just let Sharon have full if she gave him some kind of unlimited visitation - some arrangment like that. Never put too much thought into it. ;D It is a good question, though.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Nov 24, 2007 23:18:54 GMT -5
i think they were just too far away to have joint custody. i believe my mother had primary custody as well, but we never had any strict court-ordered visitation schedule. we just went to see my dad when the opportunity arose.
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Nov 25, 2007 1:00:44 GMT -5
^ That's kind of what I assumed, too. The custody arrangements did seem pretty loose, which was good (maybe too good with all of Dawn's going back and forth ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Sweet City Girl on Dec 16, 2007 13:08:59 GMT -5
Thinking about Stacey's Portrait made me start thinking about the relationship between Stacey and Laine.
Based on how especially awful Laine seemed to have become in this book, I have to wonder why Stacey was still hanging out with her at all. She should have gone her own way and made some new friends by then, instead of trying to fit in with Laine’s crowd. Allison also makes me so mad in this one, by stabbing Stacey in the back after the kindness Stacey showed her. Allison was yet another bad girl and a follower of Laine. Was there not one kind person in this school who knew Stacey? I don’t think all those girls were just following Laine’s lead when Stacey got sick; I think they had a revulsion against her based on their own feelings. It’s just ridiculous. Poor Stacey. I wish she had made friends with a better person outside Laine’s group.
It seems weird enough that several people would be afraid of Stacey because of her condition, but I really don’t understand why everyone would have been so afraid of Stacey’s diabetes. Surely it’s not that uncommon, and on an even more important note, surely there must have been some kids who would be kinder about the situation. What about kids who had other serious problems? Was it just Laine's group with that mind set? I think Stacey's being stuck with one clique of friends who were really more Laine's friends was a big mistake. I guess it makes sense that Stacey would be comfortable in a group she knew for so long, though.
In one book, Stacey mentions having a few brief close-friend relationships with other girls from school when she was little. I wonder why none of these developed more and why they seemed to disappear entirely and were never even mentioned again, especially since she went to the same school for the whole time she lived in New York. I always wished that Stacey had kept at least one of her New York friends so that we could see her having a friendship outside Stoneybrook and the BSC. At least there’s Ethan later on in the series, but it would have been nice to see Stacey having some adventures with a couple of NYC girls as well.
About their friendship in general, I always thought that Stacey and Laine were not exactly kindred spirits, despite the so-called sophistication they had in common. Let’s face it, they could both be arrogant in their own way, but Laine was much more so this way and seemed to have a negative attitude about things in general, while Stacey seemed generally more upbeat and positive (and not to mention nicer overall).
It looks like their friendship was already going downhill, even before the discovery of Stacey’s diabetes. I think Laine had started growing apart from Stacey even by around age 10 or 11.
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Dec 16, 2007 16:59:25 GMT -5
^ I agree about Stacey and Laine and the other kids. The whole group made me really mad. I've seen situations where people (unfortunately) get all weird and sometimes even make fun of people for having something like diabetes or some other illness (especially one that changes their looks) and am not sure what it comes from - fear or maybe following. I've given up trying to understand people with this.... I also wish Stacey could have found some other good friends in NYC but am glad that she found the BSC in Stoneybrook and went back there after the divorce. If I were her, I wouldn't have spoken to Laine after the way that she reacted to the diabetes and was glad when she cut things off with her in Ex Best Friend. I did see a few instances of Laine being okay but this seemed to be kind of a "it's convenient for me" basis. I think she is my least favorite BSC character (possibly my very least favorite - right up there with Robert.)
|
|
|
Post by booboobrewer on Dec 16, 2007 17:36:21 GMT -5
In one book, Stacey mentions having a few brief close-friend relationships with other girls from school when she was little. I wonder why none of these developed more and why they seemed to disappear entirely and were never even mentioned again, especially since she went to the same school for the whole time she lived in New York. I can see Laine having something to do with that. Their little "group" seemed very selective, and it's likely that Stacey let those friendships dissolve after she and Laine started spending more time together (they seemed to really stick together in the chapter about ballroom dancing in her portrait book, when they're eight).
|
|
|
Post by arnell24 on Dec 21, 2007 10:22:40 GMT -5
<What in the world did Claudia came to da sleepover in a bikini top
|
|
|
Post by aln1982 on Dec 21, 2007 16:57:17 GMT -5
^ What? I don't remember that???
|
|
|
Post by arnell24 on Dec 21, 2007 17:47:00 GMT -5
it said it in some website
|
|